But I wish that people would bear in mind that in most cases, I don't give a fuck about "the norm".

Neither do most of us, I suspect, but it helps the discussion if we're all on the same page linguistically. It's very confusing if you and I are using the same word to mean different things.

"Crazy" is so subjective, though.

My point exactly, although I'm typing this while on a conference call from hell, so I may not be at my clearest...

Kinky, crazy, and even dangerous are all subjective ideas. I consider skydiving dangerous, skydivers probably don't. Skydivers probably consider fucking while in freefall kinky, I really don't.

I'm with you on dangerous, although even that, I think, is more of a thing where the individual decides how much danger he/she is willing to risk. Where they recognize that its level of potential danger, and do it anyway.

Eh. Dangerous is relative. Every time I have sex I risk dislocations and other injuries. (And on that note, it can be so easy to have fun with people's perceptions and preconceptions. A lot of people think disabled types shouldn't have sex.)

I feel as if I said everything I have to say on this subject.

But I do intend to being up the "can something can be called kinky if it was a joke on Golden Girls?" as a subject to one of my sociology classes. I think that the answer is yes. Media has Janus face: esp. in satire, the same thing can be a joke or an excat representation of reality, depends who is watching. I didn't watch "All in the Family", but I think Archie Bunker is an example to that. A joke is a liminal place, and it's up to the watcher to decide if it's "true" or "false", or if it's funny or not. That's why "it's funny coz it's true" actually brought a new category, which I love to see how it's progressing.

And Steph, earlier, when I said "if you feel the need to handcuff...", I meant that since I basically agree with you but don't give the agreement the same social value you or others give to it, I find it pointless to agree.

Let me know if there's anything more you wish I'd clarify.

I find it pointless to agree.

Uh, okay then.

I think handcuffs are entry-level kink. handcuffs:kink::pot:drugs

handcuffs:kink::pot:drugs

Heh. The gateway!

Also the line of what is vanilla keeps changing. I'm 53--when I was just learning about sex, oral sex was considered "kinkier" than penetrative hetero sex. Now, the opposite is true. Since kinkiness is defined by being outside the norm, it changes as the norm changes. Kinkiness will always keep changing, unlike fetishes.

Kink to me is different than fetish. A kink implies choice to me--one can use handcuffs or not, one can have sex in a public place or not. Kink is something anyone adventurous might enjoy. One might enjoy or prefer some specific aspects of kinkiness, like BDSM, but one can enjoy one specific aspect of vanilla sex, like mutual masturbation, too.

Fetish to me implies necessity. One can ONLY enjoy sex with feet involved, for example. Kink seems to widen the possibilities where fetishes narrow it.

This is just me, of course.

And still, no one will tell me what "lady humps" are??

Uh, okay then.

Ahahaha, I just heard you saying this in my head and it cracked me up for whatever reason.

I am home sick today (as opposed to being out and about doing errands, I guess) but did try to do some chores at home, some of which were more successful than others. For example, rearranging the kitchen layout went fine, hanging the spice cabinet up with those sticky backed plastic hooks... not so much.

Because it's been like an entire day since I've gone out to eat, tonight we are going to Patois to celebrate our restraint.